By Kalispell Native on 02-04-09
No surprise there. The Flathead GOP contingent is the dead-enders of the MT GOP which is the dead-enders of the National GOP. And they’ll never learn to do better.
By JB on 02-04-09
Gee I can smell that bacon frying all the way from DC….can you say PORK??
By Kalispell Native on 02-04-09
I would rather have this pork spent rebuilding the infrastructure of this country, than on Iraq’s. Amazing, isn’t it? When the rethuglicans were in the majority they blithely pissed away our money for another country. But now, when our country needs it, the Rs want to obstruct it.
Keep chanting U-S-A fraudulent patriots.
By John on 02-05-09
JB - are roads, dams, power plants, bridges, sewer systems, schools and most everything else that helps sustain our standard of living and the quality of life you enjoy pork? America is screwed if we don’t stop thinking only in simplistic platitudes.
By JB on 02-05-09
You really believe the rhetoric that the Obama administration is feeding you, don’t you, John? Lets talk about the $650 million to be spent on coupons for free analog to digital TV converters, or the money being spent on the National Endowment for the Arts…the list goes on and on. My tax dollars help pay for those infrastructure items that you enjoy too, John - don’t feed me lines that this is all going to end because you don’t get pulled up by your bootstraps by the government. That is Obama playing to the masses and the GOP, saying that if we don’t spend what we don’t have now, it will get worse??? It will get worse if we do spend it now!!! BECAUSE UNCLE SAM DOESNT HAVE IT TO SPEND!!! GET IT???!!!???
By JB on 02-05-09
We are in debt over our ears, John!!! And now, we are going to spend another trillion dollars ??? Where in the world do you think the money will come from? Out of thin air, I suppose?? We’ll just print some more, sure why not?? The money has to come from somewhere, because we sure as heck don’t have it…because if we did, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now.
You don’t spend your way out of a recession, John…you economize your way out of it!!! Spending to end a recession is like giving an alcoholic another bottle of booze so he will stop drinking…you think he will?
By Roark on 02-05-09
Steenson is following typical leftist ideaology; the ends justify the means. You see, Steenson feels no moral disgust with re-distributing YOUR money for PORK projects and government expansion because she finds NO FAULT with it.-her political philosophy is that people are all so many animals to be herded and moved around at will. If she really cared about individuals and their liberties she would NEVER attempt to use the force of government to violate their lives, libertys, and fortunes. But she is NOT that type of woman. A person who will use the power of the gun to violate your rights and who does it without batting an eye is morally retarded and a danger to freedom. True to form, she is one of Obama’s empty brained collectivists. Of course I’m not surprised since she come from the biggest wealth distributing arm of government; publik edookashun.
By JB on 02-05-09
I sincerely hope that bipartisan politics on Capitol hill kills this bill in the Senate…I know, that’s wishful thinking; if that ever happened, the same things that happened to revive the bank bailout bill would happen all over again to revive this bill, yet more concessions would be made and the bill would be ramrodded through both sessions of Congress to Obama’s desk. There is no sense of reality in Washington…there never has been. Chinese banks for the first time in history are now the strongest banks in the world.
By John on 02-05-09
JB —“You don’t spend your way out of a recession…” Are you kidding me? Are you somehow related to Herbert Hoover? A recession is by definition a lack of spending. To say you cut spending to get out of a recession is like keeping water from a man dying of thirst. Have you done any study into economic history and the causes of the great depression?
By j davis on 02-05-09
I wouldn’t mind the bailout so much if they weren’t giving the lion’s share of the money to the same people who looted our economy in the first place.
By Simon on 02-05-09
The Bailout bill is different from the Stimulus Bill. The bailout bill was supposed to save our banking system and was promoted by George Bush and went to Wall Street fat cats mainly. The Stimulus Bill is focused on stimulating the cratering American economy by spending money at the ground level on projects (such as infrastructure) that will create jobs and help get the economy back on track.
By Roark on 02-05-09
Simon, uh….no.
By Roark on 02-05-09
John, where did you take econ101, marxland? Government spending absolutely exacerbates recession for the simple fact that it will take MORE money from the private sector, ie taxes, in order to fund MORE government, thus ensuring that tax receipts are low and investment in private capital markets kept barely above water. Or to put it simply; every dollar taken by the government is a dollar less a person has to spend on his or her own needs, wants, or desires. What do you get when taxes are high and personal income low = recession and / or depression.
By Funguymon on 02-05-09
John and Simon could the Federal Reserve be a part of this? Do you know what the Federal Reserve is? Ground control to Major John.
By JB on 02-05-09
John…have you? Since you are OBVIOUSLY SO MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT than the rest of us, why don’t you explain where the MONEY COMES FROM???? Oh, that’s right…you overlooked that, didn’t you? Or…maybe YOU are the savior of the American economy that we’ve all been waiting for??
By mtdon on 02-06-09
Funguymon said -“What do you get when taxes are high and personal income low = recession and / or depression”
That is 100% wrong! You have overlooked some basic facts - during the reigns of the republican presidents harding, coolidge and hoover the top tax bracket dropped from 70% down to 25% - leading to a massive re-distribution of wealth to the rich from the middle class. The rich gambled w/ the money(speculation) which led to a huge bubble that promptly crashed. The Republican Great Depression. Same thing happened in the 1880’and 90’s. Same thing happened again during the Bush years - give the rich low taxes and they will take all of it out of companies - bankrupting the companies and leading to speculative bubbles which soon crash because they are unsustainable. As the bubbles crash and companies go bankrupt they lay off workers, who then quit spending (because they have no more money). this drives down demand for goods and services which in turn leads to more layoffs and on and on we go.Welcome to the new Republican Great Depression! Letting the rich have an overwhelming share of the countries wealth is dangerous! Tax the rich and nationalize the Fed! It is the easiest way to build the middle class.
By mooseberryinn on 02-06-09
If/when I get my share of the “porkulus” money, I’ll put it in the bank for food later on… when it takes 20 bucks to buy a loaf of bread.
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
mtdon said- “What do you get when taxes are high and personal income low = a utopian life.”That is 100% wrong! A fundamental flaw with socialism is a moral one. Who is to dictate the income (income is another word for my property) and distribute it to whoever and whatever it likes? I am for free market capitalism. Should the rich have caps on how much they can make? No. Is taxing the rich going to solve our problems? No. Otherwise we would be living in perfect utopia during I guess the non republican years since that’s how mtdon only distinguishes things, that being by party line. Would you say people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs don’t deserve the money they have? I don’t know, it sure has revolutionized the world we live in. Besides, are you jealous they have so much money? It personally doesn’t affect me. The government’s job isn’t to build the middle class. Where in the Constitution does it say that? mtdon, republicans and democrats are the same. I am not a republican, I am a libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul, a republican, not because he is a republican, but for the person. Something I think you have a hard time getting wrapped around your democrat only head. Being for just one party is plain stupid and that is all you ever spill out of your finger tips.
By John on 02-06-09
Funguymon - the problem with your logic is that you are taking a concept and extending it out to an illogical extreme. There is no such thing as a “perfect” system or utopia. However, there is absolutely no correlation between tax rates and GDP or economic success. For example, Turkey and Mexico both have lower tax rates than the US and neither society could be considered great or successful economies or countries. Meanwhile, Denmark has the highest tax rates in the world and actually outperforms the US in competitiveness, GDP and virtually every metric of success. This is not to say that we need to be like Denmark, but it does say that the simplistic idea that low taxes = good economies is just that: simplistic. A test for the many libertarians on here: Tell me about even ONE society or country in modern history that has practiced your ecnomic theology that is worth living in?
By mtdon on 02-06-09
hey you’re misquoting me - the taxes are only supposed to be high on the wealthy so in order to slow down their wild gambling ways…. taxes on the rest of us should be lower… if you add in all the fees we pay in society the poor and middle class pay WAY more taxes as a percentage of our income than the wealthy. Even Warren Buffet admits that. That is because the rich(or as FDR called them the economic royalists) have MANIPULATED the system to benefit themselves overwhelmingly at the expense of the environment, our health, the public good and a healthy vibrant economy. Unfettered Capitalism with no rules is like a football game w/ no rules - the bullies end up beating everyone else up!
IT ACTUALLY DOES SAY it right in the 1st words of the Constitution - We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It’s right there - the general welfare and domestic tranquility is achieved by a strong middle class! The Constitution is a living breathing document - it changes as the times change - we can make it anything we want as a society. I can easily see where the country could justify universal not-for-profit health care as a Constitutional right. Much easiler than the rights of Corporations and the rich to steal our democracy thru lobbiests and stock manipulations. BUT PLEASE TELL ME FUNGUYMON where it states we have to sell the soul of our country for the quick buck of the multi-national corporation? Or that the corporation should even be considered a person in the court of law?
If we want to talk about political systems the closest system to the corporations and uber-rich getting to write the laws and owning everything while the rest of us eat cake IS NOT SOCIALISM. IT IS FASCISM!!!! That is where we are headed.
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
@John, that ONE society or country in modern history that has practiced my economic theology hasn’t existed. What is your point? Are you saying my philosophy is incorrect because it has never existed?
By John on 02-06-09
Yes- it means it is a fairy tale. Any fool can conjure up visions of unicorns and dancing fairies.
By John on 02-06-09
That doesn’t mean you are necessarily a fool, but how can we know the difference between those with foolish ideas, those with dangerous ideas or those with good ideas if they cannot point to any point of reality as reference? Do I hire a doctor because he thinks he’s an awesome doctor or because he actually has a track record he can point to?
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
mtdon, where in the Constitution does it say the government may or may not establish an income tax? How would we fund this universal health care? Why do you want the government to be in charge of this? Did you know the government ran post office loses $6 billion a year? If I don’t want to be a part of this universal health care will I still have to pay in? Do you think it’s fair that I live the healthiest life style I can and dot my i’s and cross my t’s while Joe Shmoe eats are McDonalds everyday, smokes a pack of cigarettes everyday, does no exercising, than the tax payers have to foot his heart attack bills? Do you think people don’t have the responsibility to handle their own money? Do you think it is everyone’s responsibility to make sure everyone is being taken care of? Who chooses to fund these big corporations? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress has the power to create such entities? Why does the government get to dictate why some banks failed and others get tax payer money? Why does the government get all this power? Why does the tax code from the IRS have to be thousands of pages while the Constitution that governs a union fits in my back pocket? Do you not think the government will grow in size if universal health care is implemented? Do you favor bigger government?
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
Really John, that is your argument? How long did legal slavery exist in Europe? Thousands and thousands of years. How long has it not? hmm, 150ish years? Do you get what I am saying or does that acid still got a hold of me?
By John on 02-06-09
It is not a question of big government or small government—but whether or not we have a smart government. Many countries around the world have very small governments. They are second and third-world countries and the quality of life of their citizenry makes these countries places that no reasonable of civilized person would want to pass on to their children.
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
Our country was founded on small government, it only grew to what is was. Thomas Jefferson was very outspoken on small government. So I do believe it is on big or small government based on the postulation we don’t need big government at all.
By Funguymon on 02-06-09
oh also John, you still didn’t say whether you understood what I was saying above with the slavery.
By Funguymon on 02-08-09
John, mtdon, not willing to respond?
By mtdon on 02-09-09
Thomas Jefferson was very outspoken against large multi-nationals owning and controlling everything and was very much against the rise of large, powerful and very rich families…...in fact one of the 1st acts our country took was a revolution against the monopoly of the East India tea company. The founders of our country were against large over bearing wealth - which is where your libertarian beliefs lead to
By mtdon on 02-09-09
Hey funguymon - you are using the tricks you learned on the faux news channel - answer a question you can’t really answer w/ another question…..WHY not respond to MY questions for you - with an actual answer not w/ another question - try that 1st then i’ll respond to your silliness - by the way the question i asked you was at the bottom of the post on 2-6—right below the preamble to the Constitution - which if you actually read it would not espouse all that garbage about less regulation leading to a more perfect world…...it would be a more perfect world for the bullies
By the ghost of allende on 02-09-09
hey john - they have put those practises to work in countries and they work wonderfully - if you are in the top 1/2 of 1% - just look at chile, poland and numerous other 3rd world countries that were forced down that road by the world bank and imf- those societies are all about no rules for the marketplace - of course the no rules only apply to the multi-national corporations and the leaders who enforce the open market rules - but if you are a regular citizen then the marketplace is full of rules for you - and they will be enforced by torture, starvation and misery -and the result is massive gov debt, unemployment, lack of access to health care, clean water and food— and if you vote in a candidate that promises to change it - his life expectancy will drop to days or maybe months if he’s lucky…read the history chile, argentina. poland and currently happening in columbia right now
By mtdon on 02-09-09
it is absolutely amazing that the righties are complaining about fiscal responsibility - 90%+ of the national debt can be directly tied to the republicans - they have wasted 3 trillion on an illegal war, lent out 7 trillion thru the federal reserve and another 350 billion thru the treasury and NOW they talk about fiscal responsibility? YOU REPUBLICANS ARE INSANE! According to the righties Pork is defined as health care, bridge building, head start money, education, food stamps for people laid off due to the massive fraud by the wealthy in this country - Explain to me how it is ok for the banks to blow money on private luxury jets and bonuses but give one nickle to the average american and you’ll all scream at the top of your lungs - welcome to the next republican great depression - it is FACT that all the major recession/depressions we have had - 1880’s and 90’s, the late 20’s and 30’s and the reagan years all occur during times of republican rule…...it’s no wonder republicans don’t want a functioning education system - because the republicans know there is a direct correlation between higher education and voting democrat
By mtdon on 02-09-09
and i don’t want to hear I’m not a republican I’m a libertarian…. blah blah…. libertarians are just republicans that want to get laid and smoke dope
By John on 02-09-09
ghost of allende - I think you are referring to Roark’s,Funguymon and JB’s ideas and practices - I’ve done my homework enough to know that laissez faire worship leads to exploitation, decline and lower standards of living for everyone except the top 1/2 percent. The most basic law of economics is that wealth will concentrate to the detriment of the majority without systems of democracy that allow for an equal opportunity. History has shown this time and time again.
By JB on 02-09-09
John, you still fail to answer where the money will come from…The Congressional Budget forecast in early January 2009 that the U.S. deficit will tally $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2009, which would mark the highest U.S. budget deficit as a percentage of the country’s GDP since World War II. But Obama also has plans for not only introducing a SECOND bailout bill for the banks, there is also another stimulus plan in the works, which will drive our deficit even deeper. The same thing that happened during the Depression will happen this time also, and it will take much longer for the US economy to recover than it did during FDR’s presidency, if it even recovers at all.
By JB on 02-09-09
That would be the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan watchdog group.
By John on 02-09-09
Yes - it really stinks that the deficit will be so high. If the Republicans hadn’t been so completely inept and reckless with their war spending and tax cuts for the wealthy maybe we would be on a better financial footing to approach this downturn. The debt will reach about 65% of GDP. During WWII the debt reached 125% of GDP. The cause of the Great Depression wasn’t government spending (there is not a single credible historian or economist that holds such a wingnut view)—but actually was the attempt by the government to actually balance the budget as they were heading into the depression. The lesson of history and the Great Depression is to do the exact opposite of what the Republicans did in the early 1930s and want to do (amazingly) again in 2008. Republicans really need to read their history because they are trying their damndest to repeat it.
By Funguymon on 02-09-09
mtdon, I’ll admit, your so called question doesn’t make sense. I noticed your reasoning is based off of emotion rather than logic. Every reply of yours is filled will name calling, open and vague questions with multiple adjectives and is written like a story rather than a coherent sentence. So again, what was your question?
By mtdon on 02-09-09
i actually do use facts all the time….unlike the right wingers who say all kinds of nonsense and don’t back it up….where are YOUR FACTS? I Don’t see even a single one…... and my question that you did not answer is: PLEASE TELL ME FUNGUYMON where it states we have to sell the soul of our country for the quick buck of the multi-national corporation? Or that the corporation should even be considered a person in the court of law? Try to give a semi-coherent answer and try to use a fact and not some discredited rush limbaugh/ sean hannity garbage.
By Funguymon on 02-09-09
You just made my point mtdon. I am done with this conversation.
By mtdon on 02-09-09
you just made my point actually…. you never use facts to back up any of your flawed arguments…show me 1 fact in this thread…...us liberals have been called traitors, communists, cut and run - leave the country if you don’t like it…. blah blah blah for 8 long years and MY time of letting the right wingers spout your nonsense is done w/ me - i will fire back at the right wing lies until you leave or give up…bye bye
By JB on 02-09-09
LOL…ok, John, admittedly, I just made your point. I am curious about your basis for the percentage of GDP figures for this fiscal year. Obviously also, the current administration will not even attempt to balance the budget, as their focus will be on spending in an attempt to revive the economy. My real concern is where the government will borrow the money from in order to pay for it, as well as the real fact that there is a chance that the government will default on those loans. There needs to be a lot more transparency and accountability, not just after the fact, but during the process. All of the issues are not being looked at, there is just this mad rush by Obama to get this bill passed and signed…and that really worries me.
By John on 02-09-09
Nothing really mysterious about the GDP basis: America’s GDP = about $14 trillion dollars. America’s projected debt = $9 trillion. That’s about 65% debt to GDP ratio. I agree that the source of these funds is problematic… but interest rates are low and US treasuries are a popular place for people to put money with so much uncertainty everywhere else. If America were an average Flathead Valley resident making $40k each year, its credit card debt would be about $26K. During WWII that same credit card debt was $50K. Some of that debt is in the form of loans or letters of credit to financial institutions that are supposedly going to pay us back… we’ll see about that.
By Don on 02-09-09
John,With all due respect, there were NO credit cards during WWII. In fact consumer debt didn’t come about until the 60’s and 70’s and then it was considered for emergencies, not luxuries. Give me a break, $50K in the early 1945 - the end of WWII in case you didn’t know - would be approximately $331,553 today at an average annual inflation rate of 3%. You are right, debt is out of control and we have learned to live as a consumption nation w/ 60+% of GDP from consumer spending. That was not the case during the 1940’s, 50’s & 60’s when we produced steel, mined raw materials, drilled for oil in our own back yard, built cars and machinery from parts MADE IN USA by Americans. We will probably never get back to those times but there is no sense compounding the problem w/ more debt. I thought that fear mongering was the perview of Bush and that is why I voted for Obama. But it seems to be the tactic of Washington, no matter who is sitting at the desk.
By John on 02-09-09
Don - the credit card analogy was simply that—an analogy—to provide context to the amount of debt the US has today compared to during WWII in a way that may be easier to relate to than trillions of dollars and GDP figures. I agree—despite what John McCain said—the fundamentals of the US economy are not good and we need to get back to a focus on economic reality: selling more than we buy as a country. I am by no means trying to justify the ridiculous debt and trade imbalance the US has. However, both are largely the result of Republican economic policy and theory (although a lot of Clintonites were also drinking the coolaid). However, history has shown us what happens when you try to cut government spending as the economy is teetering from severe recession.
By JB on 02-09-09
What will most likely happen is that those debtors will default and then the government will be left holding the bag…and I really don’t see much interest by investors in buying Treasury notes, especially as vulnerable as things are now. T-bills may have been a safe haven 10 years ago, but I see investors turning to precious metals more and more over government securities and municipal bonds.
By Mark on 02-10-09
JB, I don’t get into debates generally but I noticed your comment on the money being spent on the digital TV converters. These are coming out of $19 billion that the government earned selling the airwaves that were freed up by switching full power stations (not EVERY station like the ads say - only KCFW 9 is full power here in Kalispell) from analog to digital (which allows tighter channel spacing, freeing up the top end)
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=auction_summary&id=73
The government could spend $18 billion on coupons and still end up ahead by a billion dollars from forcing this conversion
By SHAZHAM on 02-10-09
Latest I read, over 10 trillion tax monies stolen, unaccounted gifts to “friends” of members in Congress. If someone has insider information, you know, like you’re a high level federal agent, why not give us the straight scoop? I know many retired CIA are living around MT and IDAHOHOHO.
By “friends” of members in Congress on 02-10-09
That’s RICH friends to you buddy….don’t forget that….the reason we are rich is Jesus loves us more than you!
By RichPoser on 02-11-09
You sure it’s Jesus that loves you chump? Then what are you doing slumming in Montana? Good luck getting through the eye of a needle while wearing your camel costume gold finger.
By Tox on 02-11-09
There being so much talk about what happened in the Great Depression (which we hadn’t fully recovered from by WWII) and the debt incurred during WWII, that I think some historical context is warranted on how we got OUT of that situation after WWII:Well, the industrial base of all our major competitors in Europe was in ruins, and the economies of our former enemies Germany and Japan needed to be rebuilt and were ready to gobble up our products, and kick our manufacturing industires into high gear. Not only that, the big oil companies were ours tapping into shear bottomless cheap oil reserves, providing the energy for an unparalleled economic boom. After WWII we were strategically positioned for economic success in a way that it would have been difficult to mess it up.
—
Now, however, we have not only lost (exported) much of our manufacturing base, but other countries can also do it much cheaper, and using far less resources and energy than we require. We are easily being outcompeted. And what I think will turn out to be the most important factor in the not-very-distant future, is our total dependence on oil to do almost anything. Even if we (and the world) do recover somewhat from this economic slowdown, when oil demand picks up again as a result, the price will rapidly climb to levels even exceeding the $150/barrel and $4/g of last summer. That’s when we’re really gonna be hit. Just imagine what that’s gonna mean under much harsher economic conditions. And other countries don’t need anywhere near the amounts of oil to function as we do. Many of them have been getting ready and building vast public transportation infrastructure on the cheap-oil platform. We haven’t. We prefer denial.
By mtdon on 02-11-09
i’d just add to the above historical facts the 50 million dead from ww2
i think a good start towards energy independence would be to actually enforce the sherman anti-trust laws and break up exxon-mobile for starters….along w/ about 10 others corporations in this country that are detrimental to our democracy
By Tox on 02-11-09
mtdon: Your suggestions might flatten the slope of price increases as result of lower profit margins, but ultimately it’s not going to make much difference. Most likely we’ve already passed peak oil production in the first half of 2008. From now on we’re gonna have to make due with less, even if demand increases beyond historcial supply with a recovering economy. It’s less about economics and the structure of economic entities than it is about physical realities needing energy to function.—
My suggestion for a good start would be
1) to make ALL bailout money for the automakers rigorously conditioned on the development and production of highly fuel efficient and alternative energy vehicles and public transportation infrastucture. Otherwise, good riddance to these obsolete dinosaurs.
2) stop investing our wealth in unproductive housing sprawl (which are black holes for more maintenace resources), which locks us into our oil- and individual transportation dependency, and generates ever more debt.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.